34842 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 123 / Friday, June 26, 1998 / Proposed Rules

information’’ includes reporting, recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling,

and other, similar actions. The Coast

Guard will review the existing

information collection requirements in

46 CFR 197.480 through 46 CFR 197.488

to either validate existing burdens or to

reduce or eliminate burdens that are no

longer necessary.

Questions

We request your comments and any

data or information that would answer

the following questions, as well as

comments on any other part of the

current regulations that should be

revised. In responding to a question,

please explain your reasons for each

answer so that we can carefully weigh

the consequences and impacts of any

future requirements we may propose. In

addition, please provide relevant data

(accident data would be particularly

useful), if possible, that will support the

need for a revision to the commercial

diving operations regulations.

1. Based on your review of the ADC

submission to the Coast Guard, which

revisions should the Coast Guard

include in its proposed rule, not include

in a proposed rule, or revise and include

in a proposed rule? Why?

2. Should the Coast Guard adopt the

ADC Consensus Standards or any other

written industry standards? If so, which

ones and why?

3. Is ADC’s cost estimate of

$300,000.00 for implementing their

proposed regulatory changes

reasonable? If not, please explain why

and, if possible, provide your own cost

estimate.

4. What definitions in the existing

regulations should be updated or

deleted? Please explain. Are there other

terms that the Coast Guard should

define in the regulations? Please

explain.

5. Should dynamically positioned

vessels (vessels with an installed system

that automatically maintains the

position of the vessel within a specified

tolerance by controlling onboard

thrusters to counter the forces of the

wind, waves and currents) and remotely

operated vehicles be addressed in the

regulations? If so, what particular issues

should the Coast Guard propose to

regulate?

6. Should the Coast Guard propose

regulations concerning diving in

contaminated waters? If yes, how

should it be addressed?

7. Should the Coast Guard propose

regulations concerning one atmosphere

observation bells, suits or submersibles?

If yes, how should it be addressed?

8. Should the Coast Guard propose

regulations concerning bell bounce (a

diving procedure whereby a diving bell

is used to transport divers under

atmospheric pressure to a work site, and

subsequently to transport the divers

back to the surface in a decompression

status)? If yes, how should it be

addressed?

9. Should the Coast Guard propose

regulations concerning saturation diving

in more detail? If yes, how should it be

addressed?

10. Should the Coast Guard propose

regulations concerning requirements for

back-up equipment at the dive site? If

yes, how should it be addressed?

11. Should the Coast Guard propose

regulations concerning minimum

training requirements for divers? If yes,

how should it be addressed?

12. If you think the regulations should

include minimum training

requirements, please answer the

following questions:

a. What courses or information should

the training include?

b. What should be the minimum

number of hours required for training?

c. What would be the benefits of

establishing minimum training

requirements?

d. Should training organizations or

providers meet certification

requirements? If so, what organization

should certify the training organizations

or providers?

13. Should diving supervisors be

licensed by the Coast Guard to ensure

compliance with federal regulations?

Please explain the reason for your

choice and, if your answer is ‘‘yes’’,

provide examples, if possible, of

situations in which a licensed diving

supervisor would have improved a

situation.

14. If you are a small entity as defined

under ‘‘Small Entities’’ and believe you

will be affected by potential changes to

the commercial diving regulations,

please explain what flexibility or

compliance options the Coast Guard

should consider and how these options

would minimize the burden on small

entities, while promoting commercial

diving safety.

Dated: June 19, 1998.

Joseph J. Angelo,

Acting Assistant Commandant for Marine

Safety and Environmental Protection.

[FR Doc. 98–17069 Filed 6–25–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–U

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 622

[Docket No. 980608151–8151–01;

I.D.122497B]

RIN 0648–AK43

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of

Mexico, and South Atlantic; Golden

Crab Fishery of the South Atlantic

Region; Gear and Vessel Management

Measures

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this proposed

rule to implement a regulatory

amendment prepared by the South

Atlantic Fishery Management Council

(Council) in accordance with framework

procedures for adjusting management

measures of the Fishery Management

Plan for the Golden Crab Fishery of the

South Atlantic Region (FMP). For the

golden crab fishery in the South

Atlantic exclusive economic zone (EEZ),

the regulatory amendment would revise

the vessel size limitations applicable

when a vessel permit is transferred to

another vessel and would extend

through January 31, 1999, the

authorized use of wire cable for a

mainline attached to a golden crab trap.

In addition, NMFS proposes to remove

from the regulations the eligibility

criteria and procedures for obtaining

initial commercial vessel permits in the

South Atlantic golden crab fishery. Such

criteria and procedures are no longer

applicable. The intended effects of this

proposed rule are to allow for additional

evaluation of cable used as mainlines

for traps, to provide greater flexibility

for fishermen to fish with vessels of

different lengths without adversely

affecting the FMP’s cap on fishing effort,

and to simplify the regulations.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before July 13, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed

rule must be sent to Peter Eldridge,

Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 9721

Executive Center Drive N., St.

Petersburg, FL 33702.

Requests for copies of the framework

regulatory amendment, which includes

an environmental assessment, a

regulatory impact review (RIR), and a

social impact assessment/fishery impact

statement, should be sent to the South
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 123 / Friday, June 26, 1998 / Proposed Rules 34843

Atlantic Fishery Management Council,

One Southpark Circle, Suite 306,

Charleston, SC 29407-4699; Phone: 843-

571-4366; Fax: 843-769-4520.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peter Eldridge, 813-570-5305.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

golden crab fishery in the EEZ of the

South Atlantic is managed under the

FMP. The FMP was prepared by the

Council and is implemented under the

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens

Fishery Conservation and Management

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by

regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

The Council has proposed to adjust

management measures for the South

Atlantic golden crab fishery. The

Council has submitted this regulatory

amendment to NMFS for its review,

approval, and implementation. These

measures were developed and

submitted to NMFS under the FMP’s

framework procedure for adjustments in

gear regulations and permit

requirements.

Use of Cable for Mainlines

The Council proposes that the use of

cable for mainlines be allowed through

January 31, 1999, to allow for additional

evaluation of cable in the golden crab

fishery. Under current regulations at 50

CFR 622.40(d)(2)(ii), rope is the only

material allowed for a buoy line or

mainline attached to a golden crab trap,

except that wire cable is allowed for

these purposes through January 31,

1998. The Council heard extensive

discussion of the issue at the joint

Golden Crab Advisory Panel/Committee

meeting June 16, 1997, in Key West. The

Council considered extending the

authorized use of cable for buoy lines

but declined to do so based on safety

issues raised by the Coast Guard. The

Council will reexamine the use of cable

in the golden crab fishery when it

reviews the status of the fishery in June

1998.

Vessel Size Limitations

The Council proposes to ease the

limitations on vessel size that apply

when NMFS transfers a permit from one

vessel to another. To obtain a vessel

permit by transfer of an existing permit

under current regulations, the owner of

the receiving vessel must acquire a

permit from a vessel with documented

length overall, or permits from vessels

with aggregate lengths overall, of at least

90 percent of the documented length

overall of the receiving vessel. However,

some owners want to use temporarily a

shorter vessel (i.e., downsize) and

subsequently return to a longer vessel.

Current regulations may prevent them

from doing so, because the permit

NMFS transfers to a shorter vessel

cannot be transferred again to a vessel

that is more than 11.1 percent longer

than that smaller-sized vessel.

To provide fishermen with greater

flexibility in their choice of vessel

length, the Council and this rule

propose that, when NMFS has

transferred a golden crab limited access

permit to a smaller vessel, a subsequent

transfer to a longer vessel will be

limited based on the length of the vessel

permitted prior to downsizing. For

example, if NMFS transfers a permit

issued to a vessel that is 90 ft (27.4 m)

long to a vessel that is 50 ft (15.2 m)

long, NMFS could subsequently transfer

the permit to a vessel that is 100 ft (30.5

m) long. Such a transfer would be

allowed because the length of the

permitted vessel prior to downsizing is

90 percent of the length of the

replacement vessel. The Council

concluded that limiting vessel length

based on the length of the permitted

vessel prior to downsizing meets the

Council’s intent to cap fishing effort

while at the same time providing greater

flexibility for fishermen to use shorter

vessels temporarily.

Changes Proposed by NMFS

NMFS proposes to remove from the

regulations the eligibility criteria and

procedures for obtaining initial

commercial vessel permits for the South

Atlantic golden crab fishery. All initial

permits have been issued, and no

additional permits are being issued.

Therefore, the criteria and procedures

are no longer applicable. This change

would be accomplished by moving from

§ 622.17 to § 622.4 the permit

requirement for the fishery and by

removing from § 622.17 the paragraphs

on initial eligibility, documentation of

eligibility, application procedure,

issuance, and appeals. The paragraph on

display of a permit, which is adequately

covered in § 622.4, would also be

removed.

Classification

This proposed rule has been

determined to be not significant for

purposes of E.O. 12866.

The Assistant General Counsel for

Legislation and Regulation of the

Department of Commerce, based on the

Council’s regulatory impact review

(RIR) that assesses the economic

impacts of the management measures

proposed in this rule on fishery

participants, certified to the Chief

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration that this

proposed rule, if adopted, would not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities as

follows:

* * * the provisions extending use of cable

for mainlines and easing the restrictions on

vessel size that would apply when NMFS

transfers a permit from one vessel to another

would not have adverse economic effects on

a substantial number of the firms that own

and operate fishing vessels for golden crabs

in the South Atlantic Region. All such firms

are considered small entities for purposes of

the Regulatory Flexibility Act. These actions

would not be expected to cause any

reduction in revenue or force fishermen to

modify their fishing operations. No increase

in production cost would be expected as a

result of these actions. The proposed actions

would not require any existing fishing entity

to acquire new equipment or to completely

refit existing equipment for compliance

purposes. The economic analyses do not

indicate that any entity would be forced out

of business. On the contrary, the actions

would enable permitted fishermen to

participate actively in the fishery and

contribute toward developing the market for

golden crab.

As a result, a regulatory flexibility

analysis was not prepared.

This rule repeats a collection-ofinformation requirement subject to the

Paperwork Reduction Act which has

been approved by the Office of

Management and Budget under control

number 0648–0205. Permit applications

involving transfers are estimated to take

20 minutes per response, including the

time for reviewing instructions,

searching existing data sources,

gathering and maintaining the data

needed, and completing and reviewing

the collection of information. Send

comments regarding this burden

estimate, or any other aspect of this data

collection, including suggestions for

reducing the burden, to NMFS (see

ADDRESSES) and to the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Office of Management and Budget,

Washington, DC. 20503 (Attention:

NOAA Desk Officer).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622

Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Virgin Islands.

Dated: June 19, 1998.

Rolland A. Schmitten,

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed

to be amended as follows:

PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE

CARIBBEAN, GULF, AND SOUTH

ATLANTIC

1. The authority citation for part 622

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
34844 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 123 / Friday, June 26, 1998 / Proposed Rules

2. In § 622.4, paragraph (a)(2)(x) is

added to read as follows:

§ 622.4 Permits and fees.

(a) * * *

(2) * * *

(x) For a person aboard a vessel to fish

for golden crab in the South Atlantic

EEZ, possess golden crab in or from the

South Atlantic EEZ, off-load golden crab

from the South Atlantic EEZ, or sell

golden crab in or from the South

Atlantic EEZ, a commercial vessel

permit for golden crab must be issued to

the vessel and must be on board. It is

a rebuttable presumption that a golden

crab on board a vessel in the South

Atlantic or off-loaded from a vessel in

a port adjoining the South Atlantic was

harvested from the South Atlantic EEZ.

See § 622.17 for limitations on the use,

transfer, and renewal of a commercial

vessel permit for golden crab.

* * * * *

§ 622.5 [Amended]

3. In § 622.5, in paragraph (a)(1)(v),

the reference to ‘‘§ 622.17(a)’’ is

removed and ‘‘§ 622.4(a)(2)(x)’’ is added

in its place.

§ 622.6 [Amended]

4. In § 622.6, in paragraph (a)(1)(i)

introductory text, the phrase ‘‘or

§ 622.17’’ is removed.

§ 622.7 [Amended]

5. In § 622.7, in paragraphs (a) and (b),

the phrase ‘‘or § 622.17’’ is removed, in

paragraph (c), the phrase ‘‘or

§ 622.17(g)’’ is removed, and in

paragraph (z), the reference to

‘‘§ 622.17(h)’’ is removed and

‘‘§ 622.17(b)’’ is added in its place.

§ 622.8 [Amended]

6. In § 622.8, in paragraph (a), the

reference to ‘‘§ 622.17(a)’’ is removed

and ‘‘§ 622.4(a)(2)(x)’’ is added in its

place.

7. Section 622.17 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 622.17 South Atlantic golden crab

controlled access.

(a) General. In accordance with the

procedures specified in the Fishery

Management Plan for the Golden Crab

Fishery of the South Atlantic Region,

initial vessel permits have been issued

for the fishery. No additional permits

may be issued.

(b) Fishing zones. (1) The South

Atlantic EEZ is divided into three

fishing zones for golden crab. A

permitted vessel may fish for golden

crab only in the zone shown on its

permit. A vessel may possess golden

crab only in that zone, except that other

zones may be transited if the vessel

notifies NMFS, Office of Enforcement,

Southeast Region, St. Petersburg, FL, by

telephone (813–570–5344) in advance

and does not fish in an unpermitted

zone. The designated fishing zones are

as follows:

(i) Northern zone—the South Atlantic

EEZ north of 28° N. lat.

(ii) Middle zone—the South Atlantic

EEZ from 25° N. lat. to 28° N. lat.

(iii) Southern zone—the South

Atlantic EEZ south of 25° N. lat.

(2) An owner of a permitted vessel

may request that NMFS change the zone

specified on a permit from the middle

or southern zone to the northern zone.

A request for such change and the

existing permit must be submitted from

an owner of a permitted vessel to the

RD.

(c) Transfer. (1) An owner of a vessel

with a valid golden crab permit may

request that NMFS transfer the permit to

another vessel by returning the existing

permit(s) to the RD with an application

for a permit for the replacement vessel.

(2) To obtain a commercial vessel

permit via transfer, the owner of the

replacement vessel must submit to the

RD a valid permit for a vessel with a

documented length overall, or permits

for vessels with documented aggregate

lengths overall, of at least 90 percent of

the documented length overall of the

replacement vessel.

(3) In addition to the provisions of

paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the

owner of a permitted vessel who has

requested that NMFS transfer that

permit to a smaller vessel (i.e.,

downsized), may subsequently request

NMFS transfer that permit to a vessel of

a length calculated from the length of

the permitted vessel immediately prior

to downsizing.

(d) Renewal. In addition to the

procedures and requirements of

§ 622.4(h) for commercial vessel permit

renewals, for a golden crab permit to be

renewed, the SRD must have received

reports for the permitted vessel, as

required by § 622.5(a)(1)(v),

documenting that at least 5,000 lb (2,268

kg) of golden crab were landed from the

South Atlantic EEZ by the permitted

vessel during at least one of the two 12-

month periods immediately prior to the

expiration date of the vessel permit.

§ 622.31 [Amended]

8. In § 622.31, in paragraph (a) the

phrase ‘‘or § 622.17’’ is removed.

§ 622.35 [Amended]

9. In § 622.35, in paragraph (f), the

reference to ‘‘§ 622.17(h)’’ is removed

and ‘‘§ 622.17(b)’’ is added in its place.

10. In § 622.40, in paragraph (c)(3)(ii),

the reference to ‘‘§ 622.17(h)’’ is

removed and ‘‘§ 622.17(b)’’ is added in

its place and paragraph (d)(2)(ii) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 622.40 Limitations on traps and pots.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(2) * * *

(ii) Rope is the only material allowed

to be used for a buoy line or mainline

attached to a golden crab trap, except

that wire cable is allowed for a buoy

line through January 31, 1998, and for

a mainline through January 31, 1999.

§ 622.45 [Amended]

11. In § 622.45, in paragraph (f)(2), the

reference to ‘‘§ 622.17(a)’’ is removed

and ‘‘§ 622.4(a)(2)(x)’’ is added in its

place.

[FR Doc. 98–17129 Filed 6–25–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F